Trouble logging in?We were forced to invalidate all account passwords. You will have to reset your password to login. If you have trouble resetting your password, please send us a message with as much helpful information as possible, such as your username and any email addresses you may have used to register. Whatever you do, please do not create a new account. That is not the right solution, and it is against our forum rules to own multiple accounts.

So far, without exception, I've found that fansubs that are released in both AVI and h.264 formats make the h.264 version (much) larger than the AVI counterpart. Why is that?

I would have thought that they would use h.264's higher compression efficiency to make a smaller file size of similar quality but this doesn't appear to be the case and I don't understand why. Can someone explain this to me?

So far, without exception, I've found that fansubs that are released in both AVI and h.264 formats make the h.264 version (much) larger than the AVI counterpart. Why is that?

I would have thought that they would use h.264's higher compression efficiency to make a smaller file size of similar quality but this doesn't appear to be the case and I don't understand why. Can someone explain this to me?

Thank you...

Well it's up to the encoder. Not all releases go by that standard as you say.

/me points to Ryoumi's H264/XviD releases.

Personally this is how I work. If a series I'm working on is only getting an H264 release. I aim for compression and smaller filesize.

But if the series is getting dual release (XviD in AVI/MKV and H264 in MKV/MP4) I will always aim for compression and smaller filesize with the XviD release. And make the H264 release as big as I believe is needed for the best reasonable sized quality.

Because h264 at 233mb is way better quality w/ avisynth if the encoder knows what 'he/she' is doing.
Thus this short brief table
--------------------------------------XVID @ 170mb /avg. with avg fansub is = 730-850 bitrate
--------------------------------------h264 @ 170mb /avg. with avg fansub is = 1080 bitrate about

so h264 at 233mb would be---around 1600 bitrate + filtering in said theory

But i base this off of a 23minute 14 second episode of anime with awarpsharp and convolution3d in h264 using b-frames as references on spatial and Exhaustive Search and RDO. But it depends..they are big because it results in more quality as said...though in some cases not true *cough* Power2all *cough* h264 *cough* in *cough* avi *cough* thinks * cough * mp4 *cough * was audio format *cough*

Personally this is how I work. If a series I'm working on is only getting an H264 release. I aim for compression and smaller filesize.

But if the series is getting dual release (XviD in AVI/MKV and H264 in MKV/MP4) I will always aim for compression and smaller filesize with the XviD release. And make the H264 release as big as I believe is needed for the best reasonable sized quality.

But then, since h.264 is a much better codec, why don't you use it to make the "smaller filesize" version even smaller?

Obviously, you are releasing an XviD version for the late adopters. This leaves the h.264 version for the people who are up-to-date with their technology. So, why the discrepancy in quality? It would seem to me that you would make a release of a suitable quality and make two versions of it, one for late adopters and the other for everyone else. If an extra high quality release is desired, you can release a third version in h.264. If people want quality, they will obviously pay for it (in terms of technology).

The asymmetry just doesn't make sense to me. Again, if you want to release a smaller file size version, you can make it even smaller by using h.264...

I remember when people were arguing that we had to progress to h264, upgrading insufficiently powerful computers where necessary, so fansubbers could produce smaller files and save bandwidth.

Personally, I wish this were the case.

I don't think too many people would have to upgrade their computers. While h.264 is much more computationally expensive than anything else, it'll still take a very old computer to choke on it at SD resolutions. As long as you're not doing anything else while watching the movie a five year old computer should still be able to handle it. Without any experimentation, I would guess a P3 800 or so should be good enough...

But then, since h.264 is a much better codec, why don't you use it to make the "smaller filesize" version even smaller?

Most people see H264 as meaning way better quality. So why aim for something smaller but is only slightly better in quality then the XviD release?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunboat Diplomat

Obviously, you are releasing an XviD version for the late adopters. This leaves the h.264 version for the people who are up-to-date with their technology. So, why the discrepancy in quality? It would seem to me that you would make a release of a suitable quality and make two versions of it, one for late adopters and the other for everyone else. If an extra high quality release is desired, you can release a third version in h.264. If people want quality, they will obviously pay for it (in terms of technology).

Release a third version eh? Well this is answered simply with it's not my job. Encoders do this as a free service. I have other projects as well and no reason to spend days encoding tons of different versions to satisfy a few leechers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunboat Diplomat

The asymmetry just doesn't make sense to me. Again, if you want to release a smaller file size version, you can make it even smaller by using h.264...

XviD is more for those who fear change or can't play H264. I aim for same size that they are used to with XviD (175MB). With H264 most downloading it are looking for the best quality so I aim for best quality with it. I have no care about what size I output to by doing so. (Unless it gets into insane sizes like 500MB for a 23 minute episode)

There are exceptions. Plenty of them. The last one I remember clearly is Eclipse's Pumpkin Scissors - both at 170 or 175mb range.

The reason why so many h.264 releases are larger in size is because it's bigger in size. No, I'm not pointing out the obvious >.>; Those are video with higher resolution.

1280x720 = 921600 pixels
704x400 = 281600 pixels

The larger video has more than 3 times as many pixels to show. And the file needs to carry that much info. That's why those files are much bigger.

I know of one fansubber that chose equal file size but they also chose to deprecate AVIs altogether, so they don't count (not to mention that I disagree with their decision on equal file size). Can you name a fansubber/series that chose a smaller file size for their h.264 release?

I would actually understand this file size discrepancy if h.264 were used to deliver HD content while the other was used for SD but this doesn't appear to be the case!

While I can't say for certain 'cause I didn't download both versions (I can't afford the bandwidth, which may account for my preference for smaller file sizes) I did download the h.264 out of curiosity and found it to be at SD resoultion. I would be shocked if the other version was of an even smaller resolution...

I don't think too many people would have to upgrade their computers. While h.264 is much more computationally expensive than anything else, it'll still take a very old computer to choke on it at SD resolutions. As long as you're not doing anything else while watching the movie a five year old computer should still be able to handle it. Without any experimentation, I would guess a P3 800 or so should be good enough...

Depends on the encode. My computer is a P3 1GHz machine, and it can play some h.264 encodes, but more often than not, will choke on most. Navigation of h.264 encoded files is also a problem, which as my comp will get to where I want it to go with the audio stream, but struggle to update the video stream.

and the list goes on, KazeNoKoeFansubs, Yoroshiku, etc. Yes, are a number of groups who release larger h264 than XviD but there are also a number of groups who release smaller h264 files (just as there are groups who release the same size h264 and XviD files).

Well it works best with a better and more Recent computer thus it's suggested. And overall I'd think that's why h.264 is able to provide high quality...You gotta give to get. And for a computer to process the encode requires some process power. But my 3.6ghz Plays h.264 without any problem what so ever be it not stopping and stuff like that in video. But high file size for h.264 is just an accustomed thing and is kind of hard to get out of since most are use to it and it works.

Most people see H264 as meaning way better quality. So why aim for something smaller but is only slightly better in quality then the XviD release?

Really? I don't want to lump the general population into a "they're idiots" category but it seems obvious to me that the choice of codec, alone, doesn't designate video quality. You can make an XviD movie at a much higher quality than an h.264 version simply by making the file size that much bigger, so... why would h.264 carry a stigma of being strictly of higher quality rather than having better quality per bitrate?

Quote:

Release a third version eh? Well this is answered simply with it's not my job. Encoders do this as a free service. I have other projects as well and no reason to spend days encoding tons of different versions to satisfy a few leechers.

XviD is more for those who fear change or can't play H264. I aim for same size that they are used to with XviD (175MB). With H264 most downloading it are looking for the best quality so I aim for best quality with it. I have no care about what size I output to by doing so. (Unless it gets into insane sizes like 500MB for a 23 minute episode)

Please don't interpret my questioning protocol as a sign of unappreciation. I like to think that criticism can only help (if it's honest)...

You could also aim for image quality "that they are used to" but I understand, now, that some fansubbers really are going for a dichotomy of a reasonable quality anybody-can-play version and a high quality large-filesize newest-codec version for, what is hopefully, a reasonably large audience...

and the list goes on, KazeNoKoeFansubs, Yoroshiku, etc. Yes, are a number of groups who release larger h264 than XviD but there are also a number of groups who release smaller h264 files (just as there are groups who release the same size h264 and XviD files).

Well, I'm glad to see counter-examples to my experience! Too bad for me they don't happen to sub any of the series I watch...

Well, I'm glad to see counter-examples to my experience! Too bad for me they don't happen to sub any of the series I watch...

Yes, but it makes your thread rather pointless since the size of the file doesn't really have anything to do with it being h264 or XviD. Take a look at the front page of AnimeSuki and you will find groups releasing larger, similar or smaller versions of h264 compared to XviD.

Well it works best with a better and more Recent computer thus it's suggested. And overall I'd think that's why h.264 is able to provide high quality...You gotta give to get. And for a computer to process the encode requires some process power. But my 3.6ghz Plays h.264 without any problem what so ever be it not stopping and stuff like that in video. But high file size for h.264 is just an accustomed thing and is kind of hard to get out of since most are use to it and it works.

Really? I thought I was at this a whole fansubbing thing for a while but apparently this protocol never got around to me.

It just seems funny to me that a more powerful codec would be used to make a larger movie file. Sort of like a more powerful engine being used to make a slower car...

Yes, but it makes your thread rather pointless since the size of the file doesn't really have anything to do with it being h264 or XviD. Take a look at the front page of AnimeSuki and you will find groups releasing larger, similar or smaller versions of h264 compared to XviD.

Well, it doesn't discount my personal experience, which happens to be the topic of my thread...

One would think that file size has nothing to do with the choice of compression so imagine my surprise when I found that every release I had seen, without exception (until now, thank you), made the h.264 version the larger file. It wasn't even HD, either!

Really? I don't want to lump the general population into a "they're idiots" category but it seems obvious to me that the choice of codec, alone, doesn't designate video quality. You can make an XviD movie at a much higher quality than an h.264 version simply by making the file size that much bigger, so... why would h.264 carry a stigma of being strictly of higher quality rather than having better quality per bitrate?

Well yes that can be done that way as well. Static Subs used to do that with Mai-Otome. Not sure if they do it with anything else... But still if I aim for best quality in an encode. I tend to like using a more efficient codec as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunboat Diplomat

Please don't interpret my questioning protocol as a sign of unappreciation. I like to think that criticism can only help (if it's honest)...

Well it's taken that way because you're asking encoders why they don't conform to your beliefs and a few other encoders beliefs. I don't want more robot encoders who do something cause they're peers do it that way. (Except when you're doing something that's breaking your encodes)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunboat Diplomat

You could also aim for image quality "that they are used to" but I understand, now, that some fansubbers really are going for a dichotomy of a reasonable quality anybody-can-play version and a high quality large-filesize newest-codec version for, what is hopefully, a reasonably large audience...

Yes. And the keyword is some. All encoders do things differently from each other. We don't all just run off one script and one set of settings or predicted filesize for our encodes.

__________________

"Brainpower without willpower is no power."

Last edited by Harukalover; 2006-10-15 at 16:11.
Reason: Misread something